LSAT 75, Logical Reasoning I, Q8, LSATHacks

LR Question 8 Explanation, by LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Client: The owners of the catering company we use…

QUESTION TYPE: Identify the Conclusion

CONCLUSION: The catering company shouldn’t raise their rates.

REASONING: The catering company’s mission is to provide low-cost gourmet catering.

ANALYSIS: There are two major clues that indicate the conclusion here:

• The word “should”. A sentence with the word “should” tends to be the conclusion.
• “After all”. This indicates that the sentence is evidence that supports the previous sentence.

Both of these tell us that the third sentence is the conclusion: the gourmet catering company shouldn’t raise rates.

The sentence about the company training and hiring new staff isn’t structurally relevant to the argument. It’s just context explaining why the catering company is raising rates.

___________

1. This is just a fact. The client is arguing that the catering company should reconsider.
2. This is just the reason that the catering company wants to raise rates. The client’s conclusion is that the catering company should reconsider that decision.
3. CORRECT. See the analysis above.
   You might have hesitated to choose this answer since it didn’t mention reconsidering.
   But since the conclusion said “reconsider and not raise their rates.” It’s implied that the author will only be happy if the reconsideration results in not changing rates.
4. This is just a fact supporting the conclusion. Because the company mission is to provide low-cost catering, the client argues the company shouldn’t raise rates.
5. This is a fact supporting the conclusion that the catering company therefore shouldn’t raise its rates.